ReelSongFinder

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-dependency profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields and the catalog provenance, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid/missing ISRCs or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every sentence carries information the agent can use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema absent, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (title, artist, release, links) and the data source. Only edge cases such as invalid-ISRC handling are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the format, the hyphen variants, and a concrete example. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up a recording by its ISRC'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools search_track or reel_song_info, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though search_track is an obvious sibling for name-based lookup and reel_song_info for reel context. The only routing signal is implicit (this tool requires an ISRC, which the schema already states).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return behavior ('a saved public match when one exists, otherwise the title published on the post') and a key limitation ('Does not run audio recognition'). It stops short of describing rate limits or auth needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return behavior. The trailing note about the website's audio check is arguably peripheral and slightly redundant with the 'Does not run audio recognition' line, but overall it is tight and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so adequately by explaining the two possible outcomes. It also clarifies the audio-recognition limitation. A note on failure/empty-match handling would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required 'url' parameter whose accepted link types are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same supported platforms but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read free public info for an Instagram Reel, TikTok, YouTube Shorts, or X link.' It clarifies the returned data and explicitly rules out audio recognition. It does not name or contrast with its siblings (isrc_lookup, search_track), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The line 'Does not run audio recognition' functions as an exclusion, hinting at when this tool is inappropriate. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit condition describing when to prefer this over isrc_lookup or search_track. Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: that the catalog is public (no auth implied), that matching is fuzzy ('closest recordings'), and what the results contain (ISRC codes). It omits result limits, pagination, and ambiguity handling, so it is not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the search action is front-loaded and the return value follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what comes back (recordings plus ISRC codes), which is the key missing piece. It falls short on result count, ordering confidence, and ambiguity handling, but is nearly complete for a simple lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the 'title by artist' shorthand and that artist is optional. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the public music catalog by song title and artist') and specifies the return content (closest recordings and ISRC codes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from 'isrc_lookup', though the title/artist search framing implicitly separates it from a direct ISRC lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to use when it has a title/artist rather than an ISRC, but the description never states when to prefer this over 'isrc_lookup' or 'reel_song_info'. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.